Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) | From | Chandra Seetharaman <> | Date | Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:54:13 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 16:58 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 12:42 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 12:10 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 11:25 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > > > There could be a default container which doesn't have any guarantee or > > > > limit. > > > > > > First, I think it is critical that we allow processes to run outside of > > > any container (unless we know for sure that the penalty of running a > > > process inside a container is very very minimal). > > > > When I meant a default container I meant a default "resource group". In > > case of container that would be the default environment. I do not see > > any additional overhead associated with it, it is only associated with > > how resource are allocated/accounted. > > > > There should be some cost when you do atomic inc/dec accounting and > locks for add/remove resources from any container (including default > resource group). No?
yes, it would be there, but is not heavy, IMO. > > > > > > > And anything running outside a container should be limited by default > > > Linux settings. > > > > note that the resource available to the default RG will be (total system > > resource - allocated to RGs). > > I think it will be preferable to not change the existing behavior for > applications that are running outside any container (in your case > default resource group).
hmm, when you provide QoS for a set of apps, you will affect (the resource availability of) other apps. I don't see any way around it. Any ideas ?
> > > > > > > > When you create containers and assign guarantees to each of them > > > > make sure that you leave some amount of resource unassigned. > > > ^^^^^ This will force the "default" container > > > with limits (indirectly). IMO, the whole guarantee feature gets defeated > > > > You _will_ have limits for the default RG even if we don't have > > guarantees. > > > > > the moment you bring in this fuzziness. > > > > Not really. > > - Each RG will have a guarantee and limit of each resource. > > - default RG will have (system resource - sum of guarantees) > > - Every RG will be guaranteed some amount of resource to provide QoS > > - Every RG will be limited at "limit" to prevent DoS attacks. > > - Whoever doesn't care either of those set them to don't care values. > > > > For the cases that put this don't care, do you depend on existing > reclaim algorithm (for memory) in kernel?
Yes. > > > > > > > > That > > > > unassigned resources can be used by the default container or can be used > > > > by containers that want more than their guarantee (and less than their > > > > limit). This is how CKRM/RG handles this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that a single notion of limit should suffice, and that limit > > > should more be treated as something beyond which that resource > > > consumption in the container will be throttled/not_allowed. > > > > As I stated in an earlier email "Limit only" approach can prevent a > > system from DoS attacks (and also fits the container model nicely), > > whereas to provide QoS one would need guarantee. > > > > Without guarantee, a RG that the admin cares about can starve if > > all/most of the other RGs consume upto their limits. > > > > > > > If the limits are set appropriately so that containers total memory > consumption does not exceed the system memory then there shouldn't be > any QoS issue (to whatever extent it is applicable for specific > scenario).
Then you will not be work-conserving (IOW over-committing), which is one of the main advantage of this type of feature.
> > -rohit > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > ckrm-tech mailing list > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech --
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |